Slashdot Mirror


Blu-ray Adoption Soft, More Still Own HD DVD

MojoKid writes "A new study by Harris Interactive notes that currently, one in ten Americans (10%) own an HD DVD player, while just 7% own a Blu-ray player. Crazy, right? More Americans own HD DVD right now than the 'winning' format, Blu-ray. If you think about it, that statistic isn't that shocking. When HD DVD was around, it was far and away the 'budget' format for high-def. The players were cheaper, the films were cheaper. In other words, it was a format more ready to thrive in a down economy. Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in A/V, not the common man's format. The survey also found that on average, consumers purchased approximately six standard format DVDs in the last six months, compared with one in HD DVD format."

58 of 685 comments (clear)

  1. I always maintained blue ray was moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People can just download stuff in any format. The industry is confused about this issue. My computer can play just about anything, so screw them.

    1. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention, movies can be made at any resolution almost, esp. cgi movies. Even using povray I can generate 6400x4800 res movies, and you know what? I don't need a dvd to same them. There is this universal storage device called a "hard drive". Also, crazily enough, as you point out, the movies can be in any of these mysterious "formats", such as .mov, .mp4, .avi, etc. If they want to provide me with a way to back up a 50 gig directory fine, but it's so old fashioned to think that this is going to be the new "movie" format.

      Also, I've even downgraded from dvd quality. I am very happy streaming things from Netflix.

    2. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by shoemilk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, the winner of the HD DVD BluRay format war is has and always will be "None of the above"

    3. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Chatsubo · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's amazing. Sony are so bad at format wars that, even when they win, they lose.

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    4. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The first HD movie I watched was "300" on my mates' PS3 linked to a 46" Hi-Def TV (full 1080p). I'll never watch another Hi-Def movie again.

      The definition was so good that I could see the seperations around the actors and knew exactly when they were in front of a green screen and no on set. Totally ruined the visuals (which is, in all honesty, the only reason to watch that movie).

      Total waste of money. I'm happy with my 24" monitor and DVD drive in my PC (which actually runs up to 1920x1200, higher than Hi-Def).

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by srjh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe downloadable content will be the winner much further down the track, but for the moment I think the problem is that Blu-ray hasn't done enough to dethrone DVDs as the standard format.

      Think about what DVDs had to offer over VHS - much smaller form factor (you can get about three TV seasons worth of content in a case the size of a VHS tape), significantly increased quality (both picture and sound), the ability to choose subtitles in dozens of languages with a click of a button, no rewinding, multiple soundtracks on the one disc, selectable camera angles, chapter selection, usable menus, special features, audio commentaries, no degradation of the signal from repeated use, etc...

      Blu-ray offers... a slightly better picture. If you fork out ridiculous amounts of cash for the new discs, players and a HD Television to go with it.

      Sure, I can tell the difference, and so can most people, but DVDs are actually reasonably good quality to begin with, and good enough for most people out there, myself included.

    6. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's amazing. Sony are so bad at format wars that, even when they win, they lose.

      A curious game where the only winning move is not to buy Sony.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    7. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Narishma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who have broadband and no caps, have their PC connected to their TV and are generally computer savvy can just download stuff in any format.

      There. Fixed it for you.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    8. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by jambox · · Score: 4, Funny

      What? It was camper than a row of pink tents.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    9. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Enjoy your 480p content then. Doesn't matter what resolution your monitor can handle, you need to pair it with a suitable source. DVD looks pretty bad on a monitor, unless you're 10' away from it. And what's the point of that? And did your roomate have his TV calibrated properly? Too much sharpness and edge enhancement will add halos, it's possible that you were seeing that. 300 had a strange look & feel, could be that as well. Go check out A Bug's Life, hell even the older Bond films on BD and you should be very impressed.

      My couch is about 9' away from my new 52" LCD and everything I've watched on BD looks amazing. Definitely better than up-scaling regular DVDs.

    10. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      300 is a bad example. I own it on HD-DVD, and think it looks terrible compared to most movies on either HD-DVD or BR. I hadn't picked up on the green screen obviousness, but I assumed it was likely do to the digital effects. It looks like it was filmed digitally and then they put the film "look" back in.

      Watch Dark Knight on Blu Ray sometime -- that looks fantastic.

    11. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's amazing. Sony are so bad at format wars that, even when they win, they lose.

      This quote from the article doesn't tell the whole story, though:

      "A new study by Harris Interactive notes that currently, one in ten Americans (10%) own an HD DVD player, while just 7% own a Blu-ray player. Crazy, right?"

      If you look at the chart, they've separated out the PS3 owners from the Blu-Ray player owners. Combine the 7% Blu-Ray owners with the 9% PS3 owners, and that's 16%. I'm sure that most PS3 owners didn't feel the need to buy a separate Blu-Ray player.

    12. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Talderas · · Score: 5, Informative

      So you're judging your opinions of HD on one of the few movies that was done almost entirely in front of blue/green screens, the exception being the scene involving the Persian horseback messenger coming across the hills. Mind you 300 was about 90% blue screen and 10% green screen. I'd venture to say that unless you were seeing this effect the entire movie, then your complaint isn't nearly as problematic as you make it out to be.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    13. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by futuresheep · · Score: 5, Informative

      Chances are your friend doesn't have the TV calibrated properly. Turning up the sharpness too high on many Hi-Def sets will cause this effect by adding in a lot of edge enhancement (ringing) to the image. Getting a good calibration disc like AVIA or Digital Video Essentials will make a huge difference in the appearance of HD sources.

    14. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Ross+D+Anderson · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair I think that sounds like a one off, and a bit of an knee jerk response on your part. I've personally not noticed that issue with any HD films I've seen (though I've not seen 300 in HD, the film sucked enough in SD). Blade Runner, for instance, looks absolutely stunning, as does Planet Earth, and the Pixar films look gorgeous too.
      I'd give it another go before I make my decision on one, very poor, film.
      Additionally, I'd get your mate to check he hasn't turned the sharpness of the image on the tv way up as this can cause JPEG-esque blocky artifacts to appear.

    15. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by pelago · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at the chart, they've separated out the PS3 owners from the Blu-Ray player owners. Combine the 7% Blu-Ray owners with the 9% PS3 owners, and that's 16%. I'm sure that most PS3 owners didn't feel the need to buy a separate Blu-Ray player.

      On the other hand, some of the people who owned a PS3 and no other separate BD player, might have ticked Yes to both questions. In other words, you can't necessarily add together the numbers for BD players and PS3s together, as you may be counting some devices twice.

    16. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by locnar42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I bought a PS3 for the main purpose of watching movies and for my kids to play a few games on here and there. I use it for watching BluRay and DVD and find the interface as easy as any DVD player I've ever owned. I own the remote control also, but even when the kids have lost it and I have to use the controller it's pretty much just one button click to get the movie going. I never owned a PS2 so I don't know how it compares. I did use an original XBOX as a DVD player for a little while and found it so pitiful (even with the remote) that I bought a separate DVD player instead, however my XBOX remote was flaky and I don't know which one caused the other.

    17. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by BillCable · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was reported that Criterion uses the Playstation3 as their reference Blu-ray player. So I'd say it's up there in terms of quality.

    18. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is the most true statement that can ever be made about Sony. Sony is an amazing company. Their product line is extremely wide and varied. Their quality is also extremely wide and varied. Their policies are consistently crappy and unfriendly, even suspicious, to the consumer.

      No more Sony. Just that. No More Sony.

    19. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first HD movie I watched was "300" on my mates' PS3 linked to a 46" Hi-Def TV (full 1080p). I'll never watch another Hi-Def movie again.

      The definition was so good that I could see the seperations around the actors and knew exactly when they were in front of a green screen and no on set. Totally ruined the visuals (which is, in all honesty, the only reason to watch that movie).

      Conventional movies shown in theaters show more detail than HD; if the appearance was that bad then it is because 300 had exceptionally poorly executed visual effects, not because of any fundamental problem with HD video.

    20. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by skine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why was this modded insightful?

      By now, everybody knows that some comments are incorrectly moderated Troll/Offtopic/Flamebait/etc early on, and will eventually be modded correctly.

      In fact, I'm starting to wonder if people post things like "Why was this moderated as a 'Troll'?" after good comments, regardless of whether it was actually moderated as a troll, just to piggyback off the comment's success.

    21. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree absolutely. The real reason the HD disk formats have struggled is because DVD is "good enough" for most people. DVD replaced VHS because of better picture and sound, but also because it offered the convenience of no rewinding, more stuff on one disk, the ability to skip to different chapters, etc and it's more robust than tapes. Blu-ray (or HD-DVD) doesn't offer anything above slightly better picture (assuming you have a decent, and expensive TV with a decent sound system).

      CDs replaced cassettes and vinyl for much the same reasons, the sound is better, but one of the biggest selling points is being able to skip tracks and not have jammed tapes or scratched vinyl. CDs were then replaced not by higher quality CDs, but by more convenient downloads. Similarily, the only thing to dethrone DVDs will be convenient and cheap movie downloads.

    22. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Practically every movie on the big screen is high-def -- or filmed at even higher "resolutions" if actually filmed. If the special effects were bad enough to see the green screen effects or make the CGI noticeable (such as in Langoliers - which was lousy processing even for its time, even for a made-for-TV movie) then blame the special effects house, not the process itself.

      Film movies can appear to be low-resolution, but that is because of using low-quality prints. Film should ideally offer resolution that is much, much higher than "hi definition" digital formats. Many directors will choose a high-grain film or print though, for "ambience" or "effect" and I've even seen that grain on "digital" movies, so YMMV, etc.

      Don't most films look amazing on the big screen? Well, providing the "projectionist" actually focuses it? All too often when I go to the movies the ads before the movie are in perfect focus then the movie is out of focus, which makes me prefer watching the movie at home on my old, crappy, 36" NTSC CRT. However, when the film is in sharp focus, it's amazing - and very revealing of flaws. Remember when A New Hope was re-released in the theater? Even though they cleaned a lot up and re-did a lot of the effects digitally, the old green screen process was still evident in many of the scenes, and was a bit distracting.

      High-Def is great. I like it a lot. However, as I've said many times on here, it doesn't make lousy writing worth watching, and doesn't make good writing better. High-def does inherently improve make documentary and instrctional videos though. IMHO High-Def is good for these things:

      1. Documentaries and instruction videos
      2. Gaming (but you could use a PC or Mac with a high-res monitor for that!)
      3. Turning you into a "pixel peeper," focusing on the format rather than enjoying the story (which seems to be the case referenced in your post)
      4. Raises revenue so our government can continue its onerous trend of runaway spending
      5. More revenue for retailers by forcing everyone to upgrade televisions, or at least buying set-top boxes.

      My CRT is still running, so I put off upgrading. I came this >&lt& close to buying the Samsung LN46A650 but I put it off, thinking LED backlighting will go mainstream in the next model. I was wrong on that. You have to go up to the UN46B7000, and even then, you're getting edge lighting, not an LED backlight. :(

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    23. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Funny

      The definition was so good that I could see the seperations around the actors and knew exactly when they were in front of a green screen and not on set.

      Big deal. I could detect when Doctor Who used Color Separation Overlay, and i didn't need more than a partially snowy NTSC screen to do it.

  2. It's all about the names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you had no format knowledge, and someone told you you could have HD DVD or Blu-Ray, which would you pick? Probably the one you thought you knew, High Definition DVD. You might even think it was more compatible with your existing DVD stuff. Blu Ray? What's that?

    1. Re:It's all about the names by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wouldn't surprise me if a substantial number of those saying they have an "HD DVD player" actually own Blu-Ray devices.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  3. really? by notgm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s? really?

    1. Re:really? by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. The statistics are clearly faulty.

      First, 1 in 10 Americans does not own either of these formats. Come on, really? 30 million Americans own HD-DVD players? If Toshiba and their partners had sales like that, the format war would have been over long before it was - in HD-DVD's favor.

      Second, this clearly isn't taking into account the 22 million PS3's out there, of which about 12 million are in the United States. This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $99 player announced over the weekend comes along. But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.

    2. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Second, this clearly isn't taking into account the 22 million PS3's out there, of which about 12 million are in the United States. This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $99 player announced over the weekend comes along. But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.

      On the other hand, games compete with films -- quite a few of those PS3 owners do not own a single Blu-Ray movie.

      The install base is there, but it doesn't translate into market potential in the same way that standalone players do.

  4. Flawed interpretation of the study by Joehonkie · · Score: 4, Informative

    So they're counting the PS3 and the Blu-Ray players as separate items in their study. If you add the two together, Blu-Ray adoption is higher. Of course, the question is if they count Xbox HD-DVD drives, but those numbers are probably low.

    1. Re:Flawed interpretation of the study by Nukenbar · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't think that both Xbox HD-DVD drives will change the numbers too much.

    2. Re:Flawed interpretation of the study by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player. That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed

      Buh?? I call bullshit. The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player, just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player. I've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else, and I'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.

  5. I work in he rental industry by SchizoStatic · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a way to make some extra dough I work at a video rental chain (the largest here in the US) and just from what I have seen no one really wants to rent Blu-Ray. We got 90% of the new releases on Blu-Ray and yet they prefer dvd even at the same price point. Who wants to buy a blu-ray player at over $200 right now when I can keep buying dvds at a cheaper price. Blu-Ray is beautiful yes but for most pictures I don't need or want to pay an extra 10-20 dollars for it.

    --
    https://www.speakservers.com/
    1. Re:I work in he rental industry by barzok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're only looking at one market segment though - people who still rent from a physical store.

      Early adopters and people who have invested in home setups which would make Blu-Ray worthwhile are more likely to rent from other places (Netflix, iTunes) or just buy the movies outright. No point in owning a Blu-Ray player if your only TV is a 10 year old 27" Panasonic tube.

    2. Re:I work in he rental industry by SpooForBrains · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At normal viewing distance I honestly can't tell the difference.

      I have a 720p capable LCD hooked up to a 360 (via HDMI) with the HD-DVD add-on. Really can't tell the difference between a DVD upscaled on the 360 and an HD-DVD. Not a stellar setup, though, so ...

      The other day I was in Blockbuster and watching their BluRay demo disc (Hancock) on a proper Sony 1080p capable telly. It does a sliding effect where it shows the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD (presumably with DVD suitably fuzzed to exagerate the effect, although maybe they're just honest and don't need to do that). Up close the difference was obviously quite noticable, but at normal viewing distance it was really hard to tell.

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
    3. Re:I work in he rental industry by furby076 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quick Google search for "blu ray player" on google shopping turns up a Blu-ray Disc® Player BDP-S300 for 150. This is refurb.

      What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray? Put up two tv's that are the exact same tvs. Put up a blu ray player. Put up a regular dvd palyer. Play the same movie (different formats appropriately) and have them play at the same exact time. Now that you convinced your customers which is better (and it is fairly dramatic) enjoy your rentals.

      Also - don't be afraid to put up old movies. Top Gun looks great in blu ray.

      For added fun sell blu ray players on the cheap or help customers find great deals online "Want to rent blu ray? Not sure what to look for? Let us help you."

      Bring this suggestion to your boss and if your boss is smart your boss will use this idea. Considering video rental stores are lagging in sales this is a cheap way to increase them. This will also make the boss happy with you. Do it a couple of months before your annual review and get a better raise?

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    4. Re:I work in he rental industry by guyniraxn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps it's your TV? I have a PS3 and it's got a really nice upscaler for DVDs but it can't add in texture and details that aren't in the image. While the DVDs look great, there is still a clear difference with Blu-Ray. It's sharper and has more detail. You could also have some poorly transferred HD-DVD titles, there are a lot out there on Blu-Ray too; I always read reviews at highdefdigest.com before buying one so I don't get burned with a movie that'll look just as good on DVD.

    5. Re:I work in he rental industry by Arkham · · Score: 3, Informative

      At 720p you can barely tell a difference. At 1080p the difference is more noticeable.

      However, the difference between Blue-Ray and DVD isn't just in the picture, it's in the sound. If you have a true HT setup (I have a 7.1 home theater room with a 1080p projector), and the difference between a DVD and a Blue-Ray is noticeable in the picture quality, but especially in the sound quality.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
  6. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how many people with a regular up-scaling DVD player think they have an HD-DVD player?

    1. Re:I wonder by Charlie+Kane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      YES. Here's the real problem. If you call up the average schmoe with an upconverting DVD player connected to an HDTV and ask him if he has "an HD DVD player" I'd wager that at least three times out of 10 that guy says, "Uh-huh."

      Leaving that aside, the linked Web site is trying to make a faulty extrapolation from the data. I own an Xbox HD DVD drive that I haven't powered up since last October, a PS3, maybe three or four HD DVD discs and about 90 Blu-ray titles. And yet I do not own a "Blu-ray player." But if I had responded to this survey, my participation would have been used as evidence that Blu-ray adoption is soft. Nuh-uh.

  7. No Surprise by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think what is more telling is the fact that so many people are still buying standard def., original flavor DVD's over Blu-Ray. In some ways, I really think this should come as no surprise.

    DVD player in the minivan/SUV: Standard def.
    Portable DVD player: Standard def.
    The majority of televisions still in the USA: Standard def (digital or otherwise).
    Cost of a perfectly capable, plays-all, region free DVD player in the supermarket: $20.

    Whichever big-business sector you hate this week (the hardware makers, the movie studios, the publishers, the MPAA, whatever) are pretty much trying to cram a high cost technology down the thoats of people who by majority don't want it, can't use it, or can't afford it.

    1. Re:No Surprise by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      And why would you compare it to DVD vs VHS or CD vs tape? Unlike those comparisons, Blu-ray is not a transformational technology relative to DVD. DVDs don't wear out, and an upscaling DVD player produces output that - viewed on a cheap HDTV - isn't that far behind Blu-ray quality for the majority of viewers who are more interested in watching something entertaining than in wanking over the specification of their AV suite.

      Yes, yes, I know, Blu-ray is far superior, and if we'd only just buy a $2000 HDTV, adamantium plated HDMI cables, and view it while standing on our heads and licking a irate gecko, we'd see that the quality is obviously better than DVD.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:No Surprise by Wisconsingod · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why are you having people spend money they don't need to?

      Gold plated HDMI Cables are just fine.

  8. Blu-Ray needs piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    People are just waiting for the BD-R disc's to come down in price, $15 for 1 disc is too much, blu-ray needs piracy to succeed.

    1. Re:Blu-Ray needs piracy by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      Blueray has piracy, at least in South East Asia, where there are malls full of shops selling Bluerays with the best covers a 10 year old color photocopier can provide, for the same price as 3 DVDs that aren't even out in the cinema yet (ie about $8).

    2. Re:Blu-Ray needs piracy by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Informative
      No...for some reason I don't quite understand, it's become standard operating procedure for Asian bootleg DVDs to have the Blue-Ray insignia on the (flattened) box. This is even true for cam recordings you find on the street. However the actual disks are DVD-5, and only DVD 5. DVD 9s (which are much less common, because they cost $1.50 instead of $.75) will usually come in plastic cases with higher-quality box art and no Blue-Ray insignias.

      Blue Ray players are very difficult to find in East Asia, while those "Blue Ray" bootlegs are *everywhere*...

      Of course, those in the know are just downloading off emule or youku.com anyway, why waste $.75?

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  9. Clarification? by toleraen · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Maybe my coffee is off this morning, but I'm seeing PS3 owners + Blu-ray Players = 16%, where 360 addon + HDDVD players = 14%. Since they even say:

    When Blu-ray player or PS3 owners are asked...

    I take it they're counting the two separately, which would show Blu-ray ahead. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Clarification? by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone who buys a Blu Ray player does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs.
      Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs (In fact, one would assume that a minority do).

      Thus it would be disingenuous to claim that all PS3 purchases equate to a Blu Ray player purchase when measuring the "popularity" of the format.

      On the other hand, a 360 HDDVD drive purchase *does* equate to an HD-DVD player purchase as that is its sole purpose.

  10. Re:But... by agentgonzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...does this statistic take into account PlayStations, laptops, and other electronics which include Blu-ray players?

    Did you even RTFA? http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png

  11. It was budget because it was failing! by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HD-DVD wasn't "budget" from the outset or because of any particular economy in the price of players or disks. HD-DVD cost as much as Blu-ray to start off with and then it went cheap fast when it became clear it was losing the battle. Had HD-DVD emerged the victor I'm sure we would've seen plenty of bargain-priced Blu-Ray deals and a correspondingly disproportionate install base.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:It was budget because it was failing! by BeardedChimp · · Score: 5, Informative

      This isn't true, from here:
      "The primary advantage of this format is a low manufacturing cost. Since HD-DVD media is so technically similar to standard DVD media (it uses the same layer thicknesses as DVD, made of similar materials), the discs can be produced with only a slight modification to existing manufacturing lines. "
      "This technology comes with a significant price. Manufacturing Blu-Ray discs requires significant costs in updating DVD fabrication equipment, and would be a sharp manufacturer cost increase over HD-DVD."

      Toshiba also got the jump on sony and released it's first players months earlier allowing it to get production ramped up. It's true that when HD-DVD started to lose they chopped at the price, but it was already significantly lower than Bluray.

  12. Re:Weird... by LatencyKills · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm one of those. Part of it is that I just don't see it - HD is nice, but not new-player-and-new-media-purchase nice. The other part of it is something of media purchasing fatigue - I bought it on VHS and rebought it on DVD, and now I have to buy it again on some HD format? No thanks.

    --
    Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
  13. Both are obsolete. by downix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real telling issue is that less than 20% of US Households have adopted either, and it's been out for years. Frankly, this should be no surprise, the "format war" dragged on for so long that by the time the victor had stepped forth, the market they were fighting for was already passing them by. The migration to HD video on demand, online streaming, and yes, downloading of material makes disk-based distribution an out of date concept who is slowly fading into the past.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  14. Re:early adopters VSs the luddites by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HD-DVD is dead. There's no need to wait to see who will win, as that question was answered a year and a half ago when Toshiba (the banner carrier for HD-DVD) announced that they would discontinue all HD-DVD production. According to the wiki article, the entire HD-DVD promotion group was dissolved March of last year. To my knowledge, no one builds a new HD-DVD player; there are a small number of PC drives that include HD-DVD compatibility, but I assume that's because of the low cost of inclusion once the blue laser diodes for Blu-ray are already in the drive. You can not walk into a retail store and find an HD-DVD player unless they found some hidden stock in the back and are clearance selling it for $20. You can't find HD-DVD discs unless the same thing happens. Any movie that's come out since then will never come out on HD-DVD. HD-DVD is dead and voluntarily buried by its own support and manufacturing group.

    In summary, there is no more waiting. The race was over last year. You can debate whether the quality improvement is worth the money, and there's some definite complaints to be made about the cost of the discs. If your only concern, however, is which of the formats will win, then there's no reason to continue waiting. Blu-Ray won last year.

  15. Disingenous, at best by Coopjust · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you combine the 360 addon owners with the regular pool, 14% of those surveyed own an HD-DVD player.

    So, if you combine the PS3 owners with the regular Blu-Ray owners, 16% of those surveyed owned a Blu-Ray player.

    Here is the logical response you probably have now: "But, every HD-DVD owner (including addon) bought it to watch Blu-Rays, while many PS3 owners probably bought it just to play games."

    That's taken care of by the survey too. Out of all, PS3 owners 25% buy all their movies in Blu-Ray and another. 32% buy "most" of their movies in Blu-Ray. So 57% are regular Blu-Ray buyers now, and many PS3 owners are waiting for prices to come down.

    HD-DVD owners? Stores gave the players away. They were cheaper than other upscaling players at some point. The addon for the 360 was $20 at my local stores with 5 free movies. Many HD-DVD owners probably bought closeout gear at low prices.

    So while the percentages may technically be right, with the fire sale that followed HD-DVDs failure, it's not terribly suprising. And the 7% is it at least 12% for Blu-Ray buyers, since over half of all PS3 owners buy movies.

  16. Don't buy into that lie by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won, by counting PS3's instead of stand alone players. This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10% market share but failing to state that it included phones!

    Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies. Most don't even use it to play regular DVDs, it is the "KIDS MACHINE".

    HD-DVD loaded faster, have less expensive players, and less expensive movies. It also had some great shows/movies out early that Blu Ray did not. I have both players now, I would have loved HD-DVD to have won. Why? Because of the G-D ads that too many Blu-Ray movies force you to sit through. See, that AD thing is probably another reason movie producers would favor Sony over HD. They could force you to watch their ads for other products because HD stated that that feature was not allowed - not so in Blu-Ray

    Well with http://red2blu.com/ I could get the blu-ray versions fairly cheap, but my HD-DVD player is again, faster and less prone to abuse by the dvd creator.

    Sony screwed the consumer over by lies and buying off the movie producers. They are getting exactly what they deserve, flat to falling sales. The players are overpriced and worse the movies border on extortionist in pricing. I do not buy new Blu-Ray movies, I rent them on occasion, but if they are higher than standard DVD I will just wait till the price goes down. This has two effects, by the time the price comes down the movie may no longer be interesting to me meaning I didn't need it anyway, the second being that perhaps one day they will get the hint.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  17. Artifacts in a theater near you? by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The definition was so good that I could see the seperations around the actors and knew exactly when they were in front of a green screen and no on set. Totally ruined the visuals

    Movie theaters nowadays use a 1080p or bigger format with an even higher bitrate than Blu-ray Disc. Had you seen the film in a movie theater, might you have noticed the same compositing failures?

    1. Re:Artifacts in a theater near you? by terjeber · · Score: 5, Interesting

      they have a much higher effective resolution than 1920x1080

      For various technical, biological and other reasons, they do not. Remember, what was shot on analog is not what you see in the analog theater. All movies today go from analog to digital (for editing) and back to analog. The "resolution" of the end product is determined not by the amount of grain on the celluloid (obviously better resolution than 1920x1080) but the resolution and printing capabilities of the film printer. This is exacerbated by a repeated duplication of said celluloid. Most movie theaters today will show films of less quality than a good 1080p TV with an HD source.

      The crucial point when it comes to quality is not the resolution but the number of scan lines that can be perceived. With a movie going through a number of processes, film to digital, then digital to film, then duplication round after duplication round, a 1080p movie on a good screen might well be of higher quality than an "analog" movie in the movie theater.

      So, what is the quality of a typical movie theater you ask (or at least you should). According to an international study named "Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation" a typical theater has a 750 scan lines resolution. A very good HD set will typically be about there or a little higher, depending on where you sit.

      You can even read about it here.. I am SO looking forward to a TV with 4520 scan lines of resolution.